When I clicked on the link – which I have included for you above, I was taken to a press release. You already know how I feel about press releases – in part due to the shenanigans of companies such as SciQuest – so I won’t expend any further cycles on the subject.

As I read through the text I came to the “Full Report Details” link and clicked on it.

I was then taken to another page, in which I was informed that I could order the full report for $300 U.S.

It was at this point that I asked myself the question . . . is this the reason why procurement industry coverage is so poor?

First of all, I have never heard of Fast Market Research. But even if I had, why would I pay for their report? Shouldn’t market intelligence be more readily available without cost? Especially when you consider that under this pay-to-see model, expert advice in the past delivered very poor results.

The fact is, industry coverage – true industry coverage – has to be freely and readily available, without influence, and subject to sound journalistic practices.

While I cannot comment on the SWOT analysis being offered by this particular source, because I haven’t read it, even if the information within its pages has value, it is diminished by the fact that you have to pay to get to it. It is no different than with blogs offering premium access, or for that matter a Gartner – and we all know how well that model has worked out for everyone.

Let’s face it, by and large, the absence of a free press has reduced industry coverage to just slightly above infomercial status. This is because what is and is not reported is subjective, and often times influenced by the all too chummy relationship between analysts and journalists, and the very vendors they are supposed to cover.

You simply have to compare Procurement Insights’ coverage of SciQuest, to those of other industry “pundits”, to see that there is something seriously amiss.

So what is the answer?

To begin, stop paying for reports such as the one offered by Fast Market Research, as well as premium access programs. Instead seek out those resources that provide free and open access to real industry news. When I say real industry news, I am talking about insights that will ultimately inform and empower you beyond the tired and familiar formats, with which we are all too familiar.

We are now, for better or for worse – in the new age of native content. While the accompanying video is obviously somewhat tongue in cheek, the underlying and very real truth is clear; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_F5GxCwizc

I think that the answer to your question can be found in the ultimate results, in terms of outcomes for those who use or depend upon the research.

In the procurement world, and as stressed in my subsequent post, the end result of this kind of industry coverage has been anything but good.

Love the video, piblogger! But isn’t the point of it that good, independent research does cost money? I agree that companies must not be allowed to buy their way in, but then it means that the readers have to bear the cost.

I think there is a trick being missed by many information organisations over a raft of industries. Either charge the providers or the users but not both and provide objective advice. This would make any source much more appealing.

Here is another thought to consider per one of my readers who responded to me via direct e-mail:

$300… guess the idea is that if you have to pay lots of money for it then the content is automatically valuable and correct. Maybe this is a new SciQuest strategy to boost their image and perceived value. Free press shoots them down, so pay for info and the most certainly positive report will quell any negative open press.

I certainly agree that there is little value in paying for one particular resource. The benefits for the organisation should come with increased visibility from making it openly available. Competing with free press is a hiding to nothing. Paying for information certainly adds to perceived value, but it doesn’t make it correct. Perhaps the high cost they charge is trying to boast their brand as a perceived high quality resource, but the acid test will be to see where they are in a years time.

The thrust of my comment was more aimed at organisations that charge users for access to their content but dont provide objective value as they also charge the providers so the commentary may be biased. I encountered this first when selling casting software and dealing with the organisation responsible for casting in the UK. They would not review our product as the only main competing product was a sponsor. Hence they provided little real benefit to the members.

[…] regarding my last couple of posts, particularly as it relates to a free press and the prevalence of native advertising or content. You should check out the John Oliver commentary on native advertising through the following […]

[…] the context of my recent posts including The absence of a “free press”: Is this why procurement industry coverage is so poor?, Israel’s comments raise an interesting question. If the user (or reader or listener) is not […]